JUVENILE RECIDIVISM IN ILLINOIS: EXAMINING RE-ARREST AND RE-INCARCERATION OF YOUTH COMMITTED FOR A COURT EVALUATION

Illinois Criminal Justice Information AuthorityJack Cutrone

State of IllinoisPat Quinn, Governor

Juvenile recidivism in Illinois: Examining re-arrest and re-incarceration of youth committed for a court evaluation

August 2012

Prepared by

Jordan Boulger, Research Analyst

Lindsay Bostwick, Research Analyst

Mark Powers, Research Analyst

This project was supported by cooperative agreement #2008 BJ CX K052 awarded to the Illinois

Criminal Justice Information Authority by the American Statistical Association and U.S.

Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Small Grants Program. Points of view or

opinions contained within this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent

the official position or policies of the Authority, the U.S. Department of Justice, or the American

Statistical Association.

Suggested citation: Boulger, J., Bostwick, L., & Powers, M. (2012). Juvenile recidivism in

Illinois: Examining re-arrest and re-incarceration of youth committed for a court evaluation.

Chicago, IL: Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority.

Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority

300 West Adams, Suite 200

Chicago, Illinois 60606

Phone: 312.793.8550

Fax: 312.793.8422

www.icjia.state.il.us

i

Acknowledgements

The Authority wishes to thank the following individuals and agencies for providing assistance

and guidance for this project:

Gipsy Escobar, Loyola University Chicago

Steve Karr, Illinois Department of Corrections

James P. Lynch, Bureau of Justice Statistics

Joyce Narine, American Statistical Association

David E. Olson, Loyola University Chicago

Ramona Rantala, Bureau of Justice Statistics

Jennifer Rozhon, Illinois Department of Corrections

The authors would like to acknowledge the following Authority staff, former staff, and interns

for their assistance:

Jack Cutrone

Lisa Braude

Daniel Lawrence

Ernst Melchior

Cristin Monti Evans

Mark Myrent

Jessica Reichert

Christine Devitt-Westley

ii

Table of contents

Key findings.........................................................................................................................v

Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1

Studying juvenile recidivism ......................................................................................... 1

Illinois juvenile correctional system .............................................................................. 3

Methodology....................................................................................................................... 4

Sample ......................................................................................................................... 4

Arrest data ................................................................................................................ 4

Incarceration data ..................................................................................................... 5

Data limitations ............................................................................................................ 6

Findings ................................................................................................................................ 6

Sample demographics ................................................................................................. 6

Prior arrests ............................................................................................................... 11

Prior incarcerations .................................................................................................... 14

Recidivism .................................................................................................................. 15

Re-arrest .................................................................................................................... 15

Three year re-arrest ................................................................................................ 20

Re-incarceration ......................................................................................................... 24

Re-incarceration by offense type ............................................................................... 27

First re-incarceration within two years ........................................................................ 29

Implications for policy and practice ..................................................................... 30

Discussion and conclusions .................................................................................... 31

References ........................................................................................................................ 33

Appendix A: Violent offenses .................................................................................. 35

iii

List of tables

Table 1: Sample descriptive characteristics .................................................................... 7

Table 2: Prior arrest descriptive characteristics ............................................................. 11

Table 3: Descriptive statistics for prior arrests by incarceration offense class and type 12

Table 4: Prior incarceration descriptive characteristics ................................................. 14

Table 5: Re-arrest descriptive statistics ......................................................................... 16

Table 6: Cumulative re-arrest rates by year and by offender/offense characteristic ...... 18

Table 7: Three-year re-arrest rates by offender/offense characteristic .......................... 20

Table 8: Results of point-biserial correlation analyses with three-year re-arrest ........... 22

Table 9: Results of chi-square analyses with three-year re-arrest ................................ 22

Table 10: Results of t-tests with three-year re-arrest .................................................... 23

Table 11: Three-year re-arrest odds ratios by characteristic ......................................... 24

Table 12: New sentence re-incarcerations by offense type ........................................... 28

Table 13: First re-incarceration within two years, by re-incarceration type .................... 30

iv

List of figures

Figure 1: Location of IDJJ Youth Centers ...................................................................... 10

Figure 2: Median number of prior arrests by incarceration offense class ...................... 13

Figure 3: Median number of prior arrests by incarceration offense type........................ 14

Figure 4: Percent re-arrested post release, by year ...................................................... 17

Figure 5: Percent of sample re-incarcerated post release, by year ............................... 25

Figure 6: Re-incarceration by admission type ............................................................... 26

Figure 7: Venn diagram of re-incarcerations ................................................................. 27

Figure 8: New sentence re-incarcerations by offense type ............................................ 29

v

Key findings

This study tracked re-arrest and re-incarceration of 1,230 youth incarcerated in the Illinois

Department of Juvenile Justice (IDJJ) for court evaluation after being released in state fiscal

years 2005, 2006, and 2007. A court evaluation is a 30-, 60-, or 90-day commitment to IDJJ,

during which administrators assess a youth’s rehabilitative needs and inform a judge’s

sentencing decision. Demographic characteristics, re-arrest, and re-incarceration of the court

evaluation population in Illinois were examined. Key findings include:

89 percent of youth incarcerated for court evaluations were male, and about half were

African-American. These youth averaged 15.5 years old at admission and 15.8 at exit

from the Department of Juvenile Justice.

36 percent of the sample had completed some high school (grades 9 through 12).

Almost two thirds of youth in the sample were incarcerated for court evaluation for a

non-violent offense, most commonly a property offense.

About one quarter of the sample youth were released after being sentenced for a Class 2

felony, while 21 percent had been sentenced for a Class 3 felony.

Youth incarcerated for court evaluations averaged about 4.6 prior arrests. Only 3 percent

of youth had been previously incarcerated.

Class 4 offenders tended to have more prior arrests, with an average of six. Drug

offenders had the lengthiest criminal backgrounds, averaging seven prior arrests.

Of the youth in the sample, 86 percent were re-arrested within three years of release from

a youth prison. Overall, 93 percent of the sample were re-arrested within six years.

Drug offenders had the highest three-year re-arrest rate at 93 percent, while sex offenders

had the lowest (80 percent).

Class 4 offenders had the highest overall re-arrest rate at 93 percent, while

misdemeanants had the lowest (81 percent).

Overall, 59 percent of the sample was re-incarcerated as either a juvenile or an adult, with

36 percent re-incarcerated within a year after release.

Forty percent of the youth had at least one juvenile re-incarceration, while 29 percent

were re-incarcerated as adults. 10 percent were re-incarcerated as both juveniles and

adults.

1

Introduction

Juveniles incarcerated for court evaluations are a very unique population. These youth occupy an

unclear space in the juvenile justice system in Illinois, straddling the border between probation

and a full commitment to a juvenile prison. A court evaluation can be ordered when a judge feels

that a more in-depth assessment of a youth would be beneficial to inform the final sentencing

decision.

When youth are incarcerated for a court evaluation, they usually receive a 30-, 60-, or 90-day

commitment to the Illinois Department of Juvenile Justice (IDJJ). The sentencing order that

accompanies the youth to the IDJJ reception facility is identical to the sentencing order for a full

delinquency commitment with one major exception. IDJJ intake workers distinguish a court

evaluation order from a regular commitment by the return-to-court date that is added to the

sentencing order, which is usually within that 90 day window. While in IDJJ, these youth are

subject to the department’s disciplinary procedures, and may incur additional time in a facility

for behavioral infractions. When the youth returns before the judge after the assessment period,

the judge may vacate the youth’s sentence or impose a different formal sentence, including a full

delinquency commitment to IDJJ.

The way the sentence is ultimately terminated is another of the key distinguishing features when

comparing a court evaluation to a full delinquency commitment. While youth exiting from a full

commitment will be supervised on parole, youth exiting after a court evaluation are no longer

under the supervision of IDJJ once the sentence is vacated.

The other major distinguishing characteristic of a court evaluation is the more determinate

length of commitment. Youth who receive a court evaluation are usually limited to 30-, 60-, or

90-days in an IDJJ facility, with the possibility of short extensions by the court or for

disciplinary infractions while in IDJJ custody. A full delinquency commitment, however, is

subject to an indeterminate sentence based on the level of severity of the committing offense.

Given their unique place in the juvenile justice system, youth incarcerated for court evaluations

are an especially understudied population in Illinois. These individuals are not technically

diverted, since they end up in a juvenile prison. However, they are not fully committed to IDJJ,

since they are there to be assessed and not as part of a formal commitment. Youth receiving court

evaluations have recently become a focus for more concentrated diversion efforts, with the

understanding that local communities may be better suited to conduct evaluations and provide

services to address criminogenic risks and needs. Since there is currently no research available

specifically examining these youth, policymakers and practitioners would likely benefit from a

more complete understanding of this population and its offending patterns.

Studying juvenile recidivism

Recidivism is one of the most commonly studied outcomes in criminal justice research and is

frequently used as a performance measure for criminal and juvenile justice programs. Recidivism

is generally defined as re-arrest, re-conviction, re-incarceration, or some combination of these,

2

depending on a number of background factors. Re-arrest is the least restrictive definition, since

an arrest does not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime actually occurred, or that

the individual arrested committed it. Arrest information is often the most readily available data

source for criminal justice involvement, so it is frequently used to measure recidivism. Re-

conviction is often considered a more accurate measure of reoffending than re-arrest, as it

requires an admission or finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. However, conviction

information is usually incomplete or unavailable in many jurisdictions due to looser reporting

requirements.

Re-incarceration is a more restrictive definition of recidivism, which limits the measure of

reoffending to incidents for which some standard of proof has been met and which are

considered serious enough to merit re-incarceration. However, a return to prison does not always

involve a new offense. If an individual is released with supervision, he can be re-incarcerated for

violating the conditions of supervision, which may not necessarily involve criminal activity. Due

to the nature of corrections population management, prison admissions are probably the most

accurate administrative data source for measuring recidivism. Each of these definitions of

recidivism provides a different view of an individual’s offending behavior after release from a

correctional institution. The inclusion of multiple measures of recidivism allows researchers and

practitioners to gain a more complete understanding of individual recidivism patterns, and also

allows for easier comparison of results across studies and jurisdictions that use different

definitions (Snyder & Sickmund, 2006).

Much of what is currently known about juvenile recidivism rates comes from government-run

juvenile justice departments. For these agencies, a recidivism rate is usually a measure of the

effectiveness of two main agency functions: rehabilitative programming in facilities or

supervision after release from a facility. The way recidivism is measured depends on the data

available to these government agencies, often from an agency’s internal recordkeeping system.

Juvenile corrections agencies often use re-incarceration as the primary definition for measuring

recidivism (Illinois Department of Corrections [IDOC], 2006; North Carolina Department of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention [NCDJJDP], 2004; Virginia Department of

Juvenile Justice [VDJJ], 2005). However, some agencies have access to additional sources of

data and other resources, and can therefore define recidivism in multiple ways (NCDJJDP, 2004;

VDJJ, 2005). For example, the Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice sent out a survey to all

50 states seeking to determine how juvenile recidivism was measured across jurisdictions. The

27 states that responded used a number of different methodologies, follow-up periods, and

definitions, resulting in recidivism rates ranging from 8 percent to 78 percent (VDJJ, 2005). Perhaps the biggest challenge in measuring juvenile recidivism is following youth into the adult

system, as it can be a difficult process to match juvenile and adult records. Much of the literature

studying the transition from the juvenile system into the adult system has focused on offending

trajectories and criminal careers (see Blumstein & Cohen, 1987; Moffitt, 1993; and Nieuwbeerta,

Nagin, & Blokland, 2009). However, a major limitation of recidivism research continues to be

underrepresentation of reoffending. By counting adult re-arrest and incarceration (Lin, 2007) and

referrals of juveniles to adult court (Grunwald, Lockwood, Harris, & Mennis, 2010), more recent

studies have been able to provide a more complete picture of juvenile re-offending. Regardless

of jurisdiction, the juvenile justice system has an age ceiling that is dependent upon state law

3

(VDJJ, 2005), so studies that ignore adult outcomes cannot account for offending by individuals

who have aged out of the juvenile system during a study period. When considering that the upper

age for juvenile jurisdiction is 17 in many states (VDJJ, 2005), and research findings have shown

that offending behavior is close to peak levels starting around age 18 (Nagin & Land, 1993),

following juveniles into the adult system should have an important methodological role in any

juvenile recidivism study.

Illinois last published an official juvenile recidivism rate in 2005, finding that 48 percent of

youth were re-incarcerated in a juvenile facility within a three year period (IDOC, 2006).

Although it is unclear whether or not this rate included youth who were incarcerated during court

evaluations, this number only accounted for re-incarceration in a juvenile correctional facility

within three years. However, as many individuals are close to age 17 at the time of their release,

they would not be re-admitted to a juvenile facility for a new offense. Such offenders would be

dealt with in the adult criminal justice system. Studies that limit themselves strictly to juvenile

justice data sources risk underestimating true re-offending rates of individuals transitioning from

the juvenile to the adult system.

Illinois juvenile correctional system

The juvenile justice system in Illinois is comprised of various local, county, and state agencies.

In Illinois, individuals who are 16 or younger at the time of an offense are considered juveniles

and are processed through the juvenile justice system. In 2010, 17-year-olds charged with

misdemeanor offenses also were processed as juveniles. Juvenile prison facilities are operated by

IDJJ, and a youth must be at least 13 years of age to be incarcerated. At trial and sentencing, a

youth who has pleaded or been found guilty (adjudicated delinquent) may be adjudicated a ward

of the state and remanded to the custody of IDJJ. These are referred to by IDJJ as delinquency

commitments, and these youth receive indeterminate sentences. The only exception is that the

youth must be released by their 21st birthday or within the maximum time an adult would serve

for the same offense [705 ILCS 405/5-710(7)].

Despite a growing number of diversion opportunities targeting court evaluation commitments

and the overall decrease in juvenile crime both in Illinois and nationally, significant interest

exists in better understanding juvenile incarceration and its consequences. Having more

information on youth released from correctional facilities will allow Illinois to better address the

impact of incarceration on society, public safety, and state finances. Current official data for

youth released from IDJJ facilities is limited to re-incarceration within three years. Little is

known about where these youth are returning, their re-offending patterns, or whether they are re-

arrested or incarcerated as adults. The purpose of this study is to help address this lack of

information by tracking re-arrest and re-incarceration of individuals incarcerated during court

evaluations, both as juveniles and as adults, after initial release through November 2010.

This study sought to answer the following research questions:

1. At what rate are these youth re-arrested for new offenses after being released from IDJJ?

2. At what rate are these youth re-incarcerated as juveniles for a new offense?

4

3. At what rate are these youth subsequently committed to correctional facilities as adults

for a new criminal offense?

Methodology

Sample

The Illinois Department of Corrections provided researchers with facility admission and exit

files, from which a sample of all youth released from IDJJ facilities during state fiscal years (July

1 through June 30) 2005, 2006, and 2007 was drawn. From this initial group, only youth who

were released from facilities after a new court commitment were included. Youth exiting

facilities from a technical violation of parole were excluded from the sample. The sample also

excluded youth convicted as adults in criminal court but housed in IDJJ, since they are

technically adult offenders. Finally, if a youth exited IDJJ multiple times for new offenses during

the three-year period, their record started with the earliest exit and researchers considered the

remaining incarcerations to be recidivism events.

Overall, there were 4,282 exits in the sample including both full delinquency commitments and

court evaluation commitments. Some youth appeared in both the court evaluation commitment

sample and the delinquency commitment sample (276 individuals). This study examined only the

sample of 1,230 youth exiting from court evaluation commitments. Results for delinquency

commitments are presented in a companion report (Bostwick, Boulger, and Powers, 2012).

Arrest data

The youth in the sample were linked to their prior arrests and post-release arrests as recorded in

Illinois’ central repository for criminal history records information (CHRI), housed by the

Illinois State Police (ISP) and accessed electronically by research staff at the Illinois Criminal

Justice Information Authority (ICJIA) via an on-line ad hoc connection. CHRI contains

information on juvenile and adult arrests that is statutorily mandated to be collected by arresting

agencies [20 ILCS 2630/5 (a)]. For adult arrests, state’s attorney’s offices, circuit courts, and

state and correctional institutions are required to submit dispositions to ISP, though this

information is not reliably reported. At booking, juveniles ages 10 and older must be

fingerprinted if arrested for an offense that would be considered a felony if committed by an

adult, and may be fingerprinted when arrested for Class A and B misdemeanors. The arresting

agency enters the fingerprint images and arrest information onto either a paper card or into an

electronic Livescan system and submits them to ISP for processing and posting to the individuals

criminal history record (rap sheet). Once processed, fingerprints are assigned a unique identifier,

the State Identification Number (SID). A SID can be used to access all other reported criminal

justice events associated with an individual. Approximately 94 percent of all fingerprint arrest

cards are submitted electronically via Livescan, which greatly facilitates posting of that

information to the CHRI system.

5

ICJIA has access to CHRI through a special connection to ISP’s backup server, which allows

research staff to pull electronic extracts of arrest information for specific individuals. Using

name and date of birth for the 1,230 sample records from the IDJJ exit files, exact matches in the

CHRI system were first selected and reviewed. The unique SIDs assigned to those names in

CHRI could be used to pull the associated criminal history information. If there was not an exact

match, researchers used the first three letters of the last name, the first three letters of the first

name, and the date of birth. An SQL query into the system returned the unique SIDs of potential

matches. The researchers then manually examined the potential matches to confirm their

accuracy and make adjustments as needed. Once matches were confirmed, all criminal history

records for the matched individuals were pulled, cleaned, and analyzed.

Arrest data were pulled from the CHRI Ad Hoc connection on November 22, 2010, and arrest

incidents were limited to statutorily reportable arrests (felonies and Class A and B

misdemeanors). Minor traffic violations and offenses that were Class C misdemeanors or less

serious were excluded. Additionally, CHRI entries for an issuance of a warrant or ordinance

violations were excluded from consideration as either prior or subsequent arrest events. For the

1,230 individuals in the sample, arrest records were matched for 1,205 (98 percent).

It is possible that the missing individuals could have actually had an arrest that was not submitted

to ISP, or if submitted, may not have been complete enough to be posted to the CHRI system.

Arresting agencies are not required to submit misdemeanor arrests to CHRI for juveniles, so it is

possible that if such arrests occurred, they were not submitted. Unfortunately, there was no way

to ascertain the reason for these missing arrests in CHRI.

For this study, offenses were aligned as closely as possible to statutory definitions. For example,

offenses against a person include battery and homicide. Property offenses were aligned with the

offenses against property chapter of the Illinois Compiled Statutes, with the exception of

robbery, which was defined as an offense against a person. Sex offenses, including criminal

sexual assault, were placed into their own category separate from offenses against persons. A

separate variable for violent offenses was also created based on a definition found in the Rights

of Crime Victims and Witnesses Act [725 ILCS 120/ et seq.]. Violent offenses were defined as

any offense that involved bodily harm or the threat of bodily harm, and encompassed both

offenses against persons and violent sex offenses. However, not all offenses against a person are

considered violent (such as reckless conduct or aiding child abduction) nor are all sex offenses

considered violent (such as prostitution). A complete list of the offenses classified as violent is

provided in Appendix A.

Incarceration data

In addition to matching youth to their arrest records, the sample was also linked to any

incarcerations (from 1993) in IDJJ facilities using the IDJJ number. Each youth is assigned a

unique identification number upon initial admission to an IDJJ facility. That number remains a

unique identifier for that youth for all subsequent incarcerations in IDJJ. Admissions were

examined back to state fiscal year 1993 to ensure that all prior incarcerations were accounted for.

In addition to prior incarcerations, subsequent admissions to IDJJ through state fiscal year 2009,

the latest year available, were also pulled.

6

Since the unique ID number is specific to IDJJ, it is not carried over for a youth who is

subsequently incarcerated as an adult in the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC). This

required different matching procedures for linking IDJJ data to IDOC records. Using all IDOC

admissions between 1993 and 2009, researchers first queried for exact name and date of birth

matches. After reviewing those matches for accuracy, the researchers then sought matches using

the first three letters of the first name, first three letters of the last name, and date of birth. After

the matches were reviewed and finalized, all admissions to IDOC through state fiscal year 2009

were pulled.

Data limitations There are some limitations that should be considered when examining the results of this study.

Given the very unique nature of the court evaluation population, the results reported here may

not be generalizable to other jurisdictions. Due to the unique nature of these youth, attempts to

compare or generalize these results with those from another state should be done after a

comparable population is identified. Although youth sent to IDJJ for court evaluation are

generally at lower risk to recidivate than those sent for full commitments, they may be

considered higher risk than probation populations or other diverted juveniles.

Juvenile arrest data is generally more limited than adult arrests, due to slightly different reporting

requirements. Misdemeanor arrests are not required to be reported for juveniles, so it is likely

that some arrests are missing. Further, convictions and other court data are not reliably reported

to CHRI. Because of this, accurate re-conviction data for individuals are not readily available.

Treatment data are also difficult to obtain in Illinois. Currently, services or treatment a youth

receives while in prison are only recorded in paper master files, which makes determining

rehabilitative progress difficult. As a result, there is no way to determine the extent to which

youth incarcerated for court evaluations received services like substance abuse treatment or

mental health treatment during their brief stays in IDJJ, and what effect treatment may have had

on recidivism.

The datasets used in this study are generally recognized as being among the best to use for

criminal justice research in Illinois. IDJJ files are consistently updated and fixed as errors are

found, and CHRI files are maintained and updated by ISP as new events are added to the CHRI

system and old events are sealed or expunged. Although some inconsistencies were found in

both sets of files, these records were manually checked and errors were fixed using updated data

as they were identified.

Findings

Sample demographics

The sample of youth incarcerated for court evaluations consisted of 1,230 unique individuals.

Out of these youth, 36.5 percent (n=449) were released in SFY05, 32.3 percent (n=397) were

released in SFY06, and the remaining 31.2 percent (n=384) were released in SFY07. Most of the

7

youth in this sample were black (52.8 percent, n=650), just more than one-third were white (36.3

percent, n=446), and just less than 11 percent were Hispanic (n=132).

As would be expected based on general correctional population characteristics, almost all of the

youth in the sample were male (88.9 percent, n=1,093). Youth in the sample tended to be slightly

younger at admission and exit than the maximum age of juvenile jurisdiction in Illinois (age 16),

with mean ages of 15.47 (SD=1.2) and 15.75 (SD =1.2), respectively. The standard deviation,

abbreviated as SD, is the typical distance of a value from the mean and is used as a measure of

the variability in the distribution of a variable. When compared to the mean, a large standard

deviation indicates a high level of variation, with values for that variable spread out from the

mean. A small standard deviation indicates that the values are more closely grouped around the

mean. The average education level for the court evaluation sample was 8th

grade. Only 36

percent of the sample had completed any high school (9th

through 12th

grade or GED), while 45

percent had completed grade school. Most of the youth in the sample were admitted to IDJJ for a

non-violent offense (64 percent, n=788). The largest group of individuals were admitted to IDJJ

for a property offense (46 percent, n=568), while 33 percent were committed for an offense

against a person (n=409), about 10 percent for a drug offense (n=117), 6 percent for a weapons

offense (n=76), and 3 percent for a sex offense (n=33). The remaining 2 percent were committed

for other offenses (n=27). A more detailed examination of the sample characteristics among

those incarcerated for court evaluations is found in Table 1.

Table 1 Sample descriptive characteristics

Characteristic n Percent

Race

White 446 36.3%

Black 650 52.8%

Hispanic 132 10.7%

Other 2 0.2%

Sex

Female 137 11.1%

Male 1,093 88.9%

Last grade completed

5th grade 15 1.3%

6th grade 53 4.4%

7th grade 164 13.7%

Grade school graduate (8th grade) 541 45.1%

9th grade 282 23.5%

10th grade 117 9.8%

11th grade 22 1.8%

High school graduate/GED 6 0.5%

8

Table 1: Sample descriptive characteristics, continued

Characteristic n Percent

Age at admission

13 64 5.2%

14 191 15.5%

15 344 28.0%

16 422 34.3%

17 175 14.2%

18 30 2.4%

19 4 0.3%

Age at exit

13 42 3.4%

14 144 11.7%

15 297 24.1%

16 410 33.3%

17 279 22.7%

18 51 4.1%

19 7 0.6%

Violent offense

No 788 64.1%

Yes 442 35.9%

Offense type

Person 409 33.3%

Property 568 46.2%

Drug 117 9.5%

Weapons 76 6.2%

Sex 33 2.7%

Other 27 2.2%

Offense class

Misdemeanor 184 15.0%

4 155 12.6%

3 262 21.3%

2 326 26.5%

1 242 19.7%

X 61 5.0%

9

Table 1: Sample descriptive characteristics, continued

Characteristic n Percent

Security Level

Minimum 415 34.2%

Medium 766 63.1%

Maximum 33 2.7%

Release institution

IYC – Chicago 195 15.9%

IYC – Harrisburg 153 12.4%

IYC – Joliet 117 9.5%

IYC – Kewanee 99 8.0%

IYC – Murphysboro 77 6.3%

IYC – Pere Marquette 36 2.9%

IYC – St. Charles 455 37.0%

IYC – Warrenville 98 8.0%

A large majority of these youth were exiting after a felony sentence (85 percent, n=1,046). Class

2 felonies were the most common offense class (27 percent, n=326), followed by Class 3

offenses (21 percent, n=262). State law allows for juveniles to be sentenced to IDJJ for

misdemeanors, but this population was relatively small.

Security levels are assessed at multiple times during a youth’s stay in IDJJ, and are used in

deciding facility placement. These assessments are intended to reflect the risk the youth pose to

themselves, other inmates, and staff as well as the risk of flight. To gain an accurate

representation of the individual’s risk level close to the time of their release, only the last

assessed security level was considered. This security level for most individuals was medium (63

percent, n=766), with only about 3 percent being classified as maximum security at release

(n=33). Youth in the sample had exited from all eight IDJJ facilities, most frequently from St.

Charles (37 percent, n=455). About 16 percent were released from IYC Chicago, a step-down

facility mainly for youth close to release (n=195), and about 12 percent exited from IYC

Harrisburg (n=153). Figure 1 is a representation of the locations of Illinois Youth Centers

throughout the state.

10

Figure 1 Location of IDJJ Youth Centers

Note: The location of the flags within the counties does not indicate the exact location of the facilities.

11

Prior arrests

Total prior arrests for the individuals in the court evaluation sample (for those with available

CHRI) ranged from 0 to 27 arrests, with an average of 4.56 (SD =4.1) and a median of 3,

indicating a slightly positive skew.

Of the 1,205 youth who had available CHRI, 80 percent had at least one felony arrest prior to

their incarceration (n=949), and 60 percent had at least one prior violent arrest (n=746). Further

breaking down prior arrests into offense types, 70 percent of the youth had at least one prior

property arrest (n=848), and 58 percent had at least one prior offense against a person (n=698)

Only a third had a prior arrest for a drug offense (n=400), about 12 percent had a prior weapons

offense (n=149), 8 percent had a prior status offense arrest (n=98), and only 3 percent had a prior

sex offense arrest (n=41).

When arrest history was broken down by charges, these youth averaged 6.06 prior charges

(SD=5.2) and total prior charges ranged from 0 to 34. The sample averaged 1.62 prior violent

charges (SD =2.1) and 2.66 prior felony charges (SD =2.8). Neither the violent nor felony

categories are exclusive. For example, a felony arrest for an offense against a person would be

counted as a person arrest, a violent arrest, and a felony arrest. Table 2 provides an overview of

prior arrest statistics broken down into offense types and individual charges.

Table 2 Prior arrest descriptive characteristics

Variable Minimum Maximum Mean Median SD

Prior arrests 0 27 4.56 3.00 4.06

Prior violent arrests 0 12 1.41 1.00 1.78

Prior felony arrests 0 13 2.13 2.00 2.12

Prior person arrests 0 12 1.39 1.00 1.81

Prior sex arrests 0 2 0.04 0.00 0.19

Prior property arrests 0 17 2.02 1.00 2.42

Prior drug arrests 0 16 0.81 0.00 1.73

Prior weapons arrests 0 4 0.14 0.00 0.41

Prior status arrests 0 6 0.13 0.00 0.53

Prior Other arrests 0 6 0.62 0.00 0.98

Prior charges 0 34 6.06 5.00 5.17

Prior violent charges 0 20 1.62 1.00 2.12

Prior felony charges 0 26 2.66 2.00 2.76

Table 3 provides information on prior arrests by incarceration offense type, and offense class for

which the youth was being evaluated in IDJJ. As seen in the table, counts of prior arrests are

typically skewed so the median provides a more accurate measure of central tendency.

12

Table 3 Descriptive statistics for prior arrests by incarceration offense class and type

Study incarceration

offense

Prior arrests Prior felony arrests Prior violent arrests

Mean SD Median Mean SD Median Mean SD Median

Offense Class

Misdemeanor 3.57 3.48 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00

Class 4 6.34 4.36 6.00 3.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 1.00

Class 3 4.46 3.98 3.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00

Class 2 4.9 4.37 4.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.00

Class 1 3.95 3.82 3.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 0.00

Class X 4.35 3.38 4.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00

Offense type

Person 4.72 4.12 3.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00

Property 4.07 3.86 3.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 0.00

Drug 7.16 4.58 7.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Weapons 5 3.95 4.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.00

Sex 2.87 2.47 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Other 2.78 2.62 3.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00

Overall 4.58 4.09 3.00 2.15 2.13 2.00 1.42 1.79 1.00

Individuals who were incarcerated for Class 4 offenses had a median of six prior arrests,

followed by those admitted on Class 2 and Class X felonies (median of 4). Class 1 and Class 3

offenders both had a median of three prior arrests, with misdemeanants having a median of two

prior arrests. There were no individuals given court evaluations for a charge of first degree

murder, so that offense is not included in this table. As Figure 2 shows, prior arrests for felonies

and violent offenses were fairly evenly distributed across offense classes.

13

Figure 2 Median number of prior arrests by incarceration offense class

Youth who were exiting from a court evaluation for a drug offense had a median of seven prior

arrests, the highest among all offense types. Weapons offenders were the next highest with a

median of four. Sex offenders had the lowest median number of prior arrests, with only two. As

shown in Figure 3, drug offenders also had the highest median number of prior felony arrests,

while youth who had committed offenses against persons had the highest median number of prior

violent arrests.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Misdemeanor Class 4 Class 3 Class 2 Class 1 Class X

Me

dia

n n

um

be

r o

f p

rio

r a

rre

sts

Study incarceration offense class

Prior arrests Prior felony arrests Prior violent arrests

14

Figure 3 Median number of prior arrests by incarceration offense type

Prior incarcerations

While the youth in the sample had somewhat extensive prior arrest histories, they were very

unlikely to have been in IDJJ prior to their evaluation; only 3 percent had a prior IDJJ stay

(n=34). Of these 34 youth, only four had more than one prior incarceration. Table 4 provides

more information on the prior incarcerations for the sample.

Table 4 Prior incarceration descriptive characteristics

Variable Minimum Maximum Mean Median SD

Prior incarcerations 0 3 0.03 0.00 0.20

Prior new sentence incarcerations 0 3 0.03 0.00 0.19

Prior technical violation incarcerations 0 1 0.00 0.00 0.03

Prior violent incarcerations 0 2 0.01 0.00 0.11

Prior felony incarcerations 0 2 0.02 0.00 0.15

Prior person incarcerations 0 2 0.01 0.00 0.11

Prior sex incarcerations 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00

Prior property incarcerations 0 3 0.02 0.00 0.15

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Person Property Drug Weapons Sex Other

Me

dia

n n

um

be

r o

f p

rio

r a

rre

sts

Study incarceration offense type

Prior arrests Prior felony arrests Prior violent arrests

15

Table 4: Prior incarceration descriptive characteristics, continued

Variable Minimum Maximum Mean Median SD

Prior drug incarcerations 0 1 0.00 0.00 0.04

Prior weapons incarcerations 0 1 0.00 0.00 0.04

Prior Other incarcerations 0 1 0.00 0.00 0.03

Recidivism

Recidivism after release from IDJJ was defined in four ways: (1) any re-arrest; (2) any re-

incarceration as a juvenile or an adult; (3) re-incarceration resulting from a new conviction in

juvenile court; and (4) incarceration in an adult facility or an incarceration resulting from a

conviction in adult criminal court. A court evaluation commitment does not include parole

supervision after release, so re-incarceration for a technical violation of parole was not included

in these analyses. It is important to note that youth subsequently admitted to IDJJ facilities for

convictions in the criminal court were defined as “adult” incarcerations. For this study, re-

incarceration as a juvenile or an adult was based on how the courts prosecuted the offense, rather

than solely by the type of facility in which the youth was incarcerated. Some youth convicted as

adults may have been sent to a juvenile facility because of age requirements for incarceration in

an adult facility. These youth have entered the adult criminal justice system by virtue of their

conviction in an adult court and were considered to be adult recidivists. However, the same

distinction was not made for arrests, as transfers to adult criminal court are sought by prosecutors

or the court and not by law enforcement.

Re-arrest

Of the 1,205 youth admitted for court evaluation who were matched to their criminal histories,

only about 7 percent (n=83) were not re-arrested during the follow-up period ranging from three

to seven years depending on year of exit. These youth were re-arrested an average of five times

(s=4.3), with a median of four arrests. About 76 percent of the sample was re-arrested for a

felony after release (n=911), with an average of two felony arrests and a high of 12. Just more

than 59 percent of these youth were re-arrested for at least one violent offense (n=713), with an

average of 1.29 (s=1.8) and a median of one. Two thirds of the youth incarcerated for court

evaluation were re-arrested for a property offense (n=803), while about 57 percent were re-

arrested for an offense against a person (n=690), 50 percent were re-arrested for a drug offense

(n=602), and 17 percent were re-arrested for a weapons offense (n=207). About 56 percent of the

sample was re-arrested for an offense categorized as other (n=652), 19 percent were re-arrested

for a status offense (n=230), and less than 3 percent were re-arrested for a sex offense (n=33).

Re-arrest characteristics for these youth are further described in Table 5.

16

Table 5 Re-arrest descriptive statistics

Variable Minimum Maximum Mean Median SD

Post arrests 0 28 5.02 4.00 4.28

Post violent arrests 0 14 1.29 1.00 1.75

Post felony arrests 0 12 2.01 2.00 1.88

Post charges 0 40 7.26 6.00 6.17

Post violent charges 0 20 1.58 1.00 2.24

Post felony charges 0 19 2.69 2.00 2.73

Post drug arrests 0 17 1.30 1.00 2.03

Post Other arrests 0 11 1.12 1.00 1.44

Post person arrests 0 14 1.24 1.00 1.72

Post property arrests 0 24 1.73 1.00 2.17

Post sex arrests 0 5 0.04 0.00 0.26

Post status arrests 0 7 0.33 0.00 0.85

Post weapons arrests 0 5 0.22 0.00 0.54

Since there was such an extensive follow up period for this study, re-arrest rates were also

examined by year. During the first year after release, about 57 percent (n=684) of these youth

had a re-arrest reported in CHRI. The first year is widely recognized as the most high-risk time

for re-offending, which is evidenced by the steep decline in re-arrests after year one. In year two,

19.8 percent of the sample was re-arrested for the first time (n=239), which indicates a 65

percent reduction year-to-year. First re-arrests during year three declined to 9.4 percent (n=113),

while only 5 percent were re-arrested for the first time during year four (n=63), almost 2 percent

during year five (n=21), and 0.2 percent during year six (n=2). It should also be noted that

incapacitation due to re-incarceration could impact the yearly rates of re-arrest.

Cumulatively, about 86 percent of the youth in the sample were re-arrested within the first three

years after release (n=1,036). By the fourth year after release, 91 percent of youth incarcerated

for court evaluation had been re-arrested (n=1,099), increasing to 93 percent after the fourth year

(n=1,122). Figure 4 provides further representation of these cumulative re-arrest rates by year

post-release.

17

Figure 4 Percent re-arrested post release, by year

Sex offenders incarcerated for court evaluations were found to have the lowest re-arrest rates

over the entire period studied (87.1 percent), while drug offenders had the highest re-arrest rates

(96.6 percent). In terms of offense class, youth incarcerated for court evaluation who were

admitted to IDJJ for misdemeanors had the lowest overall re-arrest rate (90 percent), while the

small number of offenders admitted for Class X offenses (most serious offenses) were re-arrested

at the highest rate (96.7 percent, n=2).

Only 33 court evaluations that had a security level recorded were classified as maximum security

(2.8 percent). Despite this small number, all 33 youth incarcerated in a maximum security setting

for court evaluation were re-arrested during the study period. The minimum and medium security

individuals were re-arrested at lower rates than maximum security individuals, but similar rates

to each other (92.7 and 92.9 percent, respectively).

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Within 1 year Within 2 years Within 3 years Within 4 years 5+ years

Pe

rce

nt

re-a

rre

ste

d

Years post release

Cumulative percent arrested Percent arrested

18

Table 6 Cumulative re-arrest rates by year and by offender/offense characteristic

Offender/offense characteristics

Never re-arrested

Cumulative re-arrest rates

Within 1 year

Within 2 years

Within 3 years

Within 4 years

Within 5 or more years

Offense type

Person 6.2% 54.7% 75.5% 86.4% 91.1% 93.8%

Property 7.4% 54.4% 75.0% 84.6% 90.6% 92.6%

Drug 3.5% 74.1% 89.7% 93.1% 96.6% 96.6%

Weapons 8.0% 60.0% 81.3% 88.0% 92.0% 92.0%

Sex 12.9% 45.2% 61.3% 80.7% 87.1% 87.1%

Other 11.1% 66.7% 74.1% 77.8% 85.2% 88.9%

Offense class

Misdemeanor 10.0% 50.6% 71.7% 81.1% 88.9% 90.0%

Class 4 4.5% 75.5% 90.9% 92.9% 94.8% 95.5%

Class 3 6.6% 52.9% 71.9% 83.7% 90.7% 93.4%

Class 2 7.5% 58.8% 76.3% 87.2% 90.6% 92.5%

Class 1 6.4% 51.9% 77.3% 84.9% 90.9% 93. 6%

Class X 3.3% 51.7% 73.3% 90.0% 95.0% 96.7%

Security level

Minimum 7.3% 56.7% 75.1% 85.3% 90.7% 92.7%

Medium 7.1% 56.3% 77.0% 86.1% 91.0% 92.9%

Maximum 0.0% 75.8% 90.9% 93.9% 96.9% 100.0%

Race

White 10.9% 41.6% 66.1% 78.3% 86.5% 89.0%

Black 2.6% 66.5% 83.5% 91.5% 95.5% 97.4%

Hispanic 14.5% 58.8% 76.3% 83.9% 85.5% 85.5%

Other 0.0% 50.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Gender

Female 18.2% 40.2% 59.9% 70.5% 78.8% 81.8%

Male 5.5% 58.8% 78.7% 87.9% 92.7% 94.5%

19

Table 6: Cumulative re-arrest rates by year and by offender/offense characteristic, continued

Offender/offense characteristics

Never re-arrested

Cumulative re-arrest rates

Within 1 year

Within 2 years

Within 3 years

Within 4 years

Within 5 or

more years

Education

5th grade 6.7% 46.7% 80.0% 86.7% 86.7% 93.3%

6th grade 8.0% 40.0% 58.0% 72.0% 84.0% 92.0%

7th grade 5.7% 50.9% 73.6% 83.0% 91.2% 94.3%

Grade school graduate (8th grade) 6.2% 60.3% 79.0% 88.2% 92.7% 93.8%

9th grade 8.7% 57.1% 75.3% 85.5% 89.5% 91.3%

10th grade 7.8% 54.8% 80.9% 88.7% 92.2% 92.2%

11th grade 4.6% 68.2% 77.3% 81.8% 95.5% 95.5%

High school graduate 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

GED 0.0% 66.7% 66.7% 66.7% 66.7% 100.0%

Unknown or missing 6.7% 56.7% 80.0% 86.0% 93.3% 93.3%

Age at exit

13 5.1% 43.6% 61.5% 74.4% 87.2% 94.9%

14 7.1% 43.6% 62.1% 79.3% 88.6% 92.9%

15 6.2% 50.7% 72.4% 83.5% 91.7% 93.8%

16 7.7% 57.7% 80.4% 88.3% 91.3% 92.3%

17 6.5% 68.4% 83.8% 89.2% 92.5% 93.5%

18 6.1% 69.4% 83.7% 91.8% 91.8% 93.9%

19 14.3% 42.9% 71.4% 85.7% 85.7% 85.7%

Hispanic youth had the lowest rate of re-arrest (85.5 percent), followed by white youth (89

percent), and black youth (97.4 percent). Males had a much higher likelihood of recidivism

compared to females, as almost 95 percent of males were re-arrested, compared to about 82

percent of females. Youth who had finished the 9th

grade (first year of high school) had lower re-

arrest rates than youth with lower or higher education levels.

In general, re-arrest rates were similar for individuals regardless of their age at release. The

exception, as seen in Table 6, is with youth who were 19 upon release. While this age group had

the lowest likelihood of re-arrest, it is based on a small sample size (n=7). In raw numbers, only

one 19-year-old remained arrest-free after release.

20

Three year re-arrest

Many of the existing studies that examine recidivism utilize either a one-year or three-year

follow-up period. Three years generally allows ample time for the sample to be exposed to the

risk of re-offending and to subsequently matriculate through the justice system in the event of

recidivism. To be more closely comparable to existing studies, the sample was separately

analyzed for recidivism at three years. Individuals who were re-arrested during the three year

period after release were still considered to have recidivated.

If a youth had been re-arrested after three years, they were not counted as having recidivated for

these analyses. These individuals would not have had a re-arrest recorded if the study had been

limited to three years of follow-up originally. Using this shorter follow up period, 14 percent

(n=169) of these youth were not re-arrested within three years, while 86 percent (n=1,036) had at

least one re-arrest during that period. Table 7 shows the re-arrest rates for certain sample

characteristics that have been adjusted to fit within the three year follow up window.

Table 7

Three-year re-arrest rates by offender/offense characteristic

Offender/offense characteristic

Valid n Not re-arrested

within three years of release

Re-arrested within three years of

release

n % n %

Offense type

Person 404 55 13.6 349 86.4

Property 552 85 15.4 467 84.6

Drug 116 8 6.9 108 93.1

Weapons 75 9 12.0 66 88.0

Sex 31 6 19.4 25 80.7

Other 27 6 22.2 21 77.8

Offense class

Misdemeanor 180 34 18.9 146 81.1

Class 4 155 11 7.1 144 92.9

Class 3 257 42 16.4 215 83.7

Class 2 320 41 12.8 279 87.2

Class 1 233 35 15.0 198 84.9

Class X 60 6 10.0 54 90.0

Security level

Minimum 409 60 14.7 349 85.3

Medium 748 104 13.9 644 86.1

Maximum 33 2 6.1 31 93.9

21

Table 7: Three-year re-arrest rates by offender/offense characteristic, continued

Offender/offense characteristic

Valid n Not re-arrested

within three years of release

Re-arrested within three years of

release

n % n %

Race

White 428 93 21.7 335 78.3

Black 644 55 8.5 589 91.5

Hispanic 131 21 16.0 110 83.9

Other 2 0 0.0 2 100.0

Gender

Female 132 39 29.6 93 70.5

Male 1073 130 12.1 943 87.9

Education

5th grade 15 2 13.3 13 86.7

6th grade 50 14 28.0 36 72.0

7th grade 159 27 16.9 132 83.0

Grade school graduate (8th grade)

534 63 11.8 471 88.2

9th grade 275 40 14.6 235 85.5

10th grade 115 13 11.3 102 88.7

11th grade 22 4 18.2 18 81.8

High school graduate

2 1 50.0 1 50.0

GED 3 1 33.3 2 66.7

Unknown or missing

30 4 13.3 26 86.7

Age at exit

13 39 10 25.6 29 74.4

14 140 29 20.7 111 79.3

15 290 48 16.6 242 83.5

16 402 47 11.7 355 88.3

17 278 30 10.8 248 89.2

18 49 4 8.2 45 91.8

19 7 1 14.3 6 85.7

Due to the high rates of re-arrest experienced by these youth, identifying predictors of re-arrest

becomes difficult because simply guessing that all youth would be re-arrested within three years,

one would be correct 86 percent of the time. However, bivariate analyses allow for testing the

relationships between demographic and incarceration characteristics and re-arrest within three

years of release. Some statistical tests, particularly chi-square tests, are affected by sample size

and may produce significant results due more to the large sample than the actual relationships.

22

Further, the highly skewed distribution of three-year re-arrest rates can cause tests on the

strength of association, such as lambda, to yield misleading results. These difficulties and

limitations make a discussion of odds ratios more informative for explaining the relationships

between categorical variables.

Table 8

Results of point-biserial correlation analyses with three-year re-arrest

Characteristic Pearson's rpb

Age at admission 0.13***

Last grade completed 0.03

Age at exit 0.11***

Length of stay 0.02

Prior arrests 0.19***

Prior felony arrests 0.17***

Prior violent arrests 0.09***

Prior IDJJ incarcerations 0.03

* p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

A youth’s age at admission was found to be positively correlated with re-arrest (rpb =.129,

p<.001), although the relationship was a weak. However, age at exit was also significantly

related to re-arrest. As Table 8 shows, older youth tended to be more likely to get re-arrested (rpb

=.110, p<.001), although this was a weak relationship as well. Race was also found to have a

statistically significant relationship with re-arrest. However, this was not a substantively

significant association (Cramer’s V=.177, p<.001). Gender was also found to be related to re-

arrest, although it was a weak relationship (phi=.157, p<.001). Although the sample incarceration

offense type was not significantly related to re-arrest, the seriousness of that offense measured as

offense class was significantly related. Although statistically significant, the relationship between

offense class and re-arrest was substantively very weak (Cramer’s V=.101, p<.05). See Table 9

for more detailed bivariate results.

Table 9

Results of chi-square analyses with three-year re-arrest

Characteristic Chi-square df Phi/Cramer's V

Race 37.896 3 0.177***

Sex 29.614 1 0.157***

Incarceration offense type 8.299 5 0.083

Incarceration offense class 12.235 5 0.101*

Last security level 1.889 2 0.040

* p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

23

Criminal history is generally recognized as an important predictor of future criminal behavior. In

this sample, indicators of extensive criminal backgrounds were linked to a higher likelihood of

re-arrest. Youth who were re-arrested within three years had a higher average number of prior

arrests than youth who were not re-arrested (t= -6.68, p<0.001). However, this relationship was

found to be rather weak (rpb=.189, p<.001). A higher number of prior arrests for felonies was

also linked to a higher likelihood of being re-arrested (t= -5.91, p<0.001), though it was a weak

correlation (rpb=.168, p<.001). Youth who had more prior arrests for violent offenses also

showed a higher likelihood for re-arrest within three years (t= -3.33, p=0.001). While this

positive correlation was statistically significant, it was also found to be a substantively weak

relationship (rpb=.095, p=.001).

Youth with a prior incarceration in their background are generally at a higher risk for recidivism

than youth who have only been arrested (Cottle, Lee, & Heilbrun, 2001). However, a prior

incarceration was a rare event for the youth in this study, so there was no statistical relationship

between prior commitments to IDJJ and future offending. Table 10 provides more detailed

results of these bivariate analyses.

Table 10

Results of t-tests with three-year re-arrest

Criminal history Not re-arrested within 3 years

(mean)

Re-arrested within 3 years

(mean) t statistic

Prior arrests 2.669 4.894 -6.681***

Prior felony arrests 1.260 2.290 -5.909***

Prior violent arrests 0.990 1.490 -3.327***

Prior IDJJ incarcerations 0.018 0.034 -0.96

* p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

Results of the chi-square tests found that race, gender, and incarceration offense class were

statistically related to re-arrest. While chi-square cannot provide any insight into relationships

between the different categories of these variables, odds ratios (OR) can be used to compare the

odds of re-arrest between the categories and a reference category. While useful, the odds ratios

presented below do not control for the influence of other variables and should be interpreted with

care. Black youth in the sample were found to have odds of being re-arrested that were almost

three times as high as white youth (OR=2.97). Hispanic youth had a lower odds ratio than black

youth, but still had odds of re-arrest 1.45 times as high as white youth in the sample. Males who

had been sentenced for a court evaluation were found to have odds of re-arrest over three times

as high as female youth (OR=3.04).

Incarceration offense class was also significantly related to re-arrest in the chi-square analyses.

In terms of odds or re-arrest, Class X offenders were found to have odds 2.10 times as high youth

sentenced for misdemeanors. Class 1 offenders, the next most serious offense class, had odds of

re-arrest 1.32 times as high as misdemeanants, while Class 2 and Class 3 offenders also had

slightly higher odds of re-arrest compared to misdemeanants (OR=1.59 and 1.19, respectively).

Class 4 offenders had the highest odds of re-arrest when compared to misdemeanants, over three

24

times as high (OR=3.05). Table 11 provides a more detailed examination of the relative odds of

re-arrest, with the reference category in bold.

Table 11 Three-year re-arrest odds ratios by characteristic

Characteristic Odds ratio

Race (white reference)

Black 2.97

Hispanic 1.45

Gender (female reference) Male 3.04

Education (no HS or GED

reference) HS or GED 0.24

Incarceration offense type (person reference)

Property 0.87

Drug 2.13

Weapons 1.16

Sex 0.66

Incarceration offense class (misdemeanor reference)

Class X 2.10

Class 1 1.32

Class 2 1.59

Class 3 1.19

Class 4 3.05

Security level (minimum reference)

Medium 1.06

Maximum 2.67

Re-incarceration If an individual is re-incarcerated for a new sentence, that person has either pleaded guilty to an

offense, or has been found guilty. Since youth incarcerated for court evaluation are not subject to

parole supervision upon release, they are not at risk for a technical parole violation. As a result,

technical violation returns are not included in this examination.

Of the 1,230 youth in the sample, almost 59 percent were re-incarcerated between the time of

their release and the end of SFY 2009 (n=723). Since three separate cohorts were included in the

sample (SFY05, SFY06, and SFY07), the period of being at risk of re-incarceration varied

between two and five years. In the first year after release, 36 percent of the sample was re-

25

incarcerated (n=447). An additional 12 percent were re-incarcerated during the second year after

release (n=153). This declined further to about 6 percent within three years (n=78) and about 3

percent within four years (n=41). Only 0.3 percent of the youth were re-incarcerated for the first

time after four years (n=4). Figure 5 further describes the trends in re-incarceration over time at

risk.

Figure 5 Percent of sample re-incarcerated post release, by year

Almost one third of youth who were re-incarcerated for new sentences experienced more than

one re-incarceration (n=223). A re-incarceration as a juvenile for a new sentence was most

prevalent, as 40 percent of the youth incarcerated for a court evaluation had at least one new

return as a juvenile (n=492), while 29 percent had a new return as an adult (n=356). Individuals

who had been sentenced for a new offense in adult criminal court, but were housed in IDJJ by

virtue of their age, were counted as adult returns. Figure 6 shows re-incarceration rates by

admission type, which is non-exclusive (individuals who were re-incarcerated as both juveniles

and adults are counted in both columns).

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

within 1 year within 2 years within 3 years within 4 years 5+ years

Pe

rce

nt

re-i

nc

arc

era

ted

Years post release

Cumulative percent re-incarcerated Percent re-incarcerated new

26

Figure 6 Re-incarceration by admission type

Although there were a number of individuals who were re-incarcerated for new offenses as both

juveniles and adults, most youth in the sample were re-incarcerated as either a juvenile or an

adult. Of the 723 individuals who were re-incarcerated for new offenses, just more than 50

percent were returned only as juveniles (n=367). Thirty two percent of the youth who recidivated

were re-incarcerated only as adults for new sentences (n=231), while just more than 17 percent

of the sample had a new sentence of re-incarceration as both a juvenile and an adult (n=125).

Figure 7 shows roughly how the re-incarcerations were distributed between the admission types.

The percentages included in the diagram are reflective of the overall sample (n=1,230), while the

percentages discussed here reflect only those individuals who were re-incarcerated (n=723).

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Juvenile new return Adult new return

Pe

rce

nt

re-i

nca

rce

rate

d

Return admission type

27

Figure 7 Venn diagram of re-incarcerations

Re-incarceration by offense type

New sentence re-incarcerations were further examined by the type of offense committed. Since

many youth had more than one re-incarceration, the study counted all new admissions to get a

better idea of the types of offenses for which these individuals were being re-incarcerated.

Because the study did not examine only the first re-incarceration, there is some overlap of

individuals across offense types and admission types. For example, if an individual was re-

incarcerated once for a new drug offense and again for a new property offense, both of those

would be counted in their respective offense types. The youth in the sample were most

commonly re-incarcerated for property offenses (32 percent), followed by offenses against

persons (20 percent). Table 12 provides a more detailed breakdown of new sentence re-

incarceration offense types.

28

Table 12 New sentence re-incarcerations by offense type

Offense type

Juvenile re-incarceration

Adult re-incarceration

Either juvenile or adult re-incarceration

n % n % n %

Person offense 147 11.9% 100 8.1% 247 20.1%

Property offense 257 20.9% 135 10.9% 392 31.9%

Drug offense 64 5.2% 80 6.5% 144 11.7%

Weapons offense 29 2.4% 44 3.6% 73 5.9%

Sex offense 9 0.7% 8 0.4% 17 1.4%

Other offense 8 0.7% 17 1.4% 25 2.0%

New sentence re-incarcerations

367 29.8% 231 18.8% 125 10.2%

Overall, property offenses appear to be the most common new offense leading to re-

incarceration. Close to one third of the youth initially incarcerated for court evaluation were later

re-incarcerated for property offenses, while 21 percent of these individuals were re-incarcerated

as juveniles for property offenses and 11 percent of these youth were re-incarcerated as adults for

property offenses. Offenses against persons were the next most common, with 20 percent of the

sample being re-incarcerated for this type of offense. Twelve percent of the sample was re-

incarcerated as a juvenile for offenses against persons, while 8 percent were re-incarcerated as

adults for these types of offenses. Figure 8 provides a visualization of how the proportions of

new sentence re-incarcerations were spread across the different offense types and adult and

juvenile admissions.

29

Figure 8 New sentence re-incarcerations by offense type

First re-incarceration within two years

Youth in the sample were released between FY05 and FY07. The most current year that IDJJ

data were available for this study was FY09, which allows for a follow-up period between two to

four years, depending on the date an individual was released from IDJJ. Combining re-

incarceration data with varying time periods can potentially skew results, so this study also

examined re-incarcerations within the first two years. This allows for a follow-up period that is

standardized for the whole sample, regardless of release year. Identifying recidivism during this

period was done in a similar way to calculating three year re-arrest rates. Individuals who were

re-incarcerated within two years of their original release were still counted as having recidivated,

while individuals who were re-incarcerated after two years were counted as not having

recidivated for these analyses. Within two years of release, 600 youth had been re-incarcerated

(48.8 percent). As Table 13 shows, almost 40 percent of the sample had a first re-incarceration as

a juvenile (n=479) within two years. Just less than 10 percent had a first re-incarceration as an

adult within two years (n=121).

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

New person New property New drug New weapons New sex New other

Pe

rce

nt

re-i

nc

arc

era

ted

New sentence re-incarceration offense type

Juvenile Adult Any new return

30

Table 13 First re-incarceration within two years, by re-incarceration type

Type n Percent of all

youth (n=1230)

Percent of all re-incarcerations

(n=723)

Not re-incarcerated within two years 630 51.2% -

First re-incarceration as juvenile 479 38.9% 66.3%

First re-incarceration as adult 121 9.8% 16.7%

Implications for policy and practice

Existing research on juvenile correctional populations in Illinois is limited in terms of quantity

and usefulness. This is even more of an issue with youth incarcerated for court evaluations, since

there is no existing research literature regarding this population. The implications of having these

data available in an easy-to-understand format that can be further analyzed means that decisions

that affect IDJJ generally, and court evaluations specifically, can become more data-driven. This

study helps to fill a sizeable gap in knowledge for the state with information that can be used to

address high recidivism rates. Now that a baseline for recidivism rates has been established,

further research is needed to examine the causes behind the high recidivism of this population.

More specifically, the findings presented here have implications for the continued diversion of

youth incarcerated for court evaluations. Starting in 2005, Redeploy Illinois has focused on

diverting these youth from IDJJ into community-based programming. This initiative makes funds

available for enhancing rehabilitative services (substance abuse treatment, mental health

treatment, cognitive behavioral therapy) in local jurisdictions. By accepting the money, these

jurisdictions agree to reduce the number of commitments to IDJJ by 25 percent. Early in the

planning stages, Redeploy Illinois was designed to divert youth from becoming incarcerated for

court evaluation and keep them in their communities for evaluation instead. The findings of this

study provide support for an expansion of diversion programs like Redeploy Illinois. Youth who

underwent court evaluation while incarcerated were found to be at a lower risk for re-

incarceration in the future when compared to full commitments (see Bostwick, Boulger, &

Powers, 2012), and may benefit from the services provided by programs like Redeploy Illinois.

Youth incarcerated for court evaluation are sent to IDJJ to be evaluated for appropriate

placement, usually probation or a full incarceration commitment. Since these individuals

generally have less serious criminal backgrounds, they may be more likely to benefit from

rehabilitative services such as mental health treatment and cognitive behavioral therapy. In many

cases treatment is more appropriately delivered in the community where there is a more well-

developed treatment infrastructure and more options available for individualized treatment plans.

One of the driving factors behind the creation of Redeploy Illinois was to build up these

community resources and increase the capacity of community service providers. Instead of

sending these youth to IDJJ to be evaluated, it may make more sense from a fiscal standpoint to

have them evaluated in the community, and then placed in a diversion program or, if warranted,

31

committed to IDJJ. Proper risk, assets, and needs assessments will help to place these individuals

in the appropriate setting.

Without the increased demands of supervising and assessing this short term population, IDJJ

may be able to better identify and address the risks and needs of youth placed there on a full

commitment.

Discussion and conclusions

Youth who are incarcerated for court evaluation are a unique population in Illinois. Although

they are incarcerated and spend a relatively short period of time in an IDJJ facility, the sentence

can still be vacated, diverting them from continued involvement with IDJJ. Despite this

ambiguous status, youth incarcerated for court evaluation share many characteristics with the

delinquents who received full commitments to IDJJ. As with the delinquent sample, youth

incarcerated for a court evaluation were typically black males exiting IDJJ just prior to their 16th

birthday. Most of these youth had finished grade school, while just more than one-third had

completed some high school. Given the average age at admission (just over 15), it would be

reasonable to assume that the sample would have a higher proportion of youth who had

completed some high school. However, it appears that involvement in the juvenile justice system

derailed educational outcomes for many of these youth.

Most of the youth in the sample were in IDJJ for a non-violent crime, most commonly a property

offense. Just less than half of the sample received a court evaluation after arrest for lower-level

offense classes, namely Class 3 and 4 felonies or misdemeanors. These youth averaged about 4.5

prior arrests and about six total prior charges, and most had previous arrests for a violent offense

or a property offense. Most youth had also been arrested for a felony offense. Youth who were

Class 4 offenders had the highest average number of prior arrests and were most likely to have a

prior felony arrest. Although a Class 4 felony is the least-serious felony class, a comparatively

lengthy and serious arrest history may partially explain why these youth were sent to IDJJ for

evaluation instead of receiving probation. Additionally, drug offenders in the court-evaluated

sample tended to have lengthier arrest histories, while sex offenders tended to have fewer prior

arrests. Youth incarcerated for court evaluations were very unlikely to have been incarcerated

previously (3 percent), which may indicate some previous diversion attempts for these youth.

The court evaluation sample also had high overall re-arrest rates. Between the three to six years

of follow-up, about 93 percent of these youth were re-arrested. The highest risk time for re-arrest

was found to be within the first year after release, which is consistent with recidivism literature

for other populations. About 57 percent of the sample was re-arrested within the first year, while

another 20 percent did not make it past two years without a new arrest. After standardizing the

follow-up period at three years, the re-arrest rate was only slightly lower (86 percent). Consistent

with the measures of prior criminal history, Class 4 offenders tended to have the highest

likelihoods of re-arrest (93 percent), while misdemeanants had the lowest (81 percent). In terms

of offense type, drug offenders likewise had the highest rates of re-arrest (93 percent), with sex

offenders having the lowest (81 percent). Males also had much higher re-arrest rates than

females.

32

The bivariate statistical tests that were conducted on the sample youth showed some

relationships between re-arrest within three years and individual characteristics. The age of the

sample at both intake and exit were positively correlated with re-arrests at three years, indicating

that youths who were older tended to have higher levels of recidivism. Similarly, prior arrests

generally and prior felony and violent arrests specifically were also found to be positively

correlated with re-arrest within three years. However, these relationships were weak and showed

little substantive significance. Nevertheless, these results support current understandings of

recidivism; criminal history is generally a good indicator of future criminality.

Recidivism measured as re-incarceration also proved to be rather common for the court-

evaluated sample, with an overall re-incarceration rate of 59 percent. Within the first year after

release, 36 percent of the sample was returned to prison, while an additional 12 percent were re-

incarcerated within the second year at risk. Part of the reason for such a high re-incarceration rate

was the inclusion of adult returns. Because many of these youth were released close to the

maximum age of juvenile jurisdiction, not including adult offending may have depressed

previous juvenile recidivism rates. About 30 percent of the sample experienced an adult return,

either as a juvenile convicted in that adult system or as a regular adult commitment. Only about

10 percent of the sample consisted of double failures—individuals who were returned both as

juveniles and adults.

Although the study has some limitations, the findings presented are consistent with other juvenile

corrections populations in some ways, while reflective of the lower risk that these youth present.

Although re-arrest rates were quite high for this population, re-incarceration rates were

appreciably lower. This finding may be an indication of a lower inherent risk of re-offending for

youth incarcerated for court evaluations, a deterrent effect of the short stay in IDJJ, or likely

some combination of these and other factors.

Although recidivism rates are high, this should not be interpreted to mean that IDJJ is failing.

These youth are not placed in IDJJ to be rehabilitated but to be evaluated for appropriate

placement. The vast majority of these youth have their sentences vacated after their brief stay in

IDJJ, with aftercare and supervision not required. Under the current economic climate, IDJJ does

not have the resources to effect positive change in these individuals, and cannot be realistically

expected to do so. This makes identifying and diverting appropriate individuals even more

important, and highlights the need for enhanced supervision and aftercare participation for youth

who are sent to prison.

There is justifiable concern from criminal justice policymakers, practitioners, and citizens about

high recidivism rates of youth released from IDJJ facilities. Close to 30 percent of youth

sentenced for court evaluations go on to be incarcerated as an adult, which means that

improvements in assessment, treatment, and placement can be made to address this problem. As

more information becomes available on cost-effective alternatives that can improve outcomes for

juveniles in the system, more informed decisions can be made with respect to having a positive

impact on the juvenile corrections system and the youth it serves.

33

References

705 ILCS 405/5-710(7)

725 ILCS 120/3(c)

Blumstein, A. & Cohen, J. (1987). Characterizing criminal careers. Science, 237(4818), 985-991.

doi: 10.1126/science.237.4818.985

Bostwick, L., Boulger, J., & Powers, M. (2012). Juvenile Recidivism: Exploring re-arrest and

re-incarceration of youth offenders in Illinois. Chicago, IL: Illinois Criminal Justice

Information Authority. In manuscript.

Cottle, C.C., Lee, R.J., & Heilbrun, K. (2001). The prediction of criminal recidivism in juveniles:

A meta-analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 28(3), 367-394. doi:

10.1177/0093854801028003005

Grunwald, H.E., Lockwood, B., Harris, P.W., & Mennis, J. (2010). Influences of neighborhood

context, individual history and parenting behavior on recidivism among juvenile

offenders. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39(9), 1067-1079. doi: 10.1007/s10964-

010-9518-5.

Illinois Department of Corrections. (2005). 2005 Department Data. Retrieved from

http://www.idoc.state.il.us/subsections/reports/department_data/Department%20Data%20

2005.pdf

Lin, J. (2007). Exploring the Impact of Institutional Placement on the Recidivism of Delinquent

Youth. Unpublished. Document No. 217590.

Moffitt, T.E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: A

developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100(4), 674-701. doi: 10.1037/0033-

295X.100.4.674.

Nagin, D.S. & Land, K.C. (1993). Age, criminal careers, and population heterogeneity:

Specification and estimation of a nonparametric, mixed Poisson model. Criminology,

31(3), 327-362.

Nieuwbeerta, P., Nagin, D.S., & Blokland, A.A.J. (2009). Assessing the impact of the first-time

imprisonment on offenders’ subsequent criminal career development: A matched samples

comparison. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 25(3), 227-257.

North Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (2004). Recidivism

of Juveniles Adjudicated Delinquent for Offenses in the Class A-E Adult Felony Offense

Categories: A Two-Year Follow-Up.

34

Snyder, H.N., & Sickmund, M. (2006). Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report.

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice. (2005). Juvenile recidivism in Virginia. DJJ Research

Quarterly, 3, 1-12.

35

Appendix A: Violent offenses

The following is a list of offenses categorized as violent according to the Rights of Crime

Victims and Witnesses Act which defines a violent offense as any felony in which force or threat

of force was used against the victim [725 ILCS 120/et seq.].

Description of offense Statute

Solicitation for murder 720 ILCS 5/8-1

First degree murder 720 ILCS 5/9

Homicide of unborn child 720 ILCS 5/9-1.2

Second degree murder 720 ILCS 5/9-2

Involuntary manslaughter of unborn child 720 ILCS 5/9-2.1

Involuntary manslaughter or reckless homicide 720 ILCS 5/9-3

Involuntary manslaughter or reckless homicide of unborn child 720 ILCS 5/9-3.2

Drug induced homicide 720 ILCS 5/9-3.3

Concealment of homicidal death 720 ILCS 5/9-3.4

Kidnapping 720 ILCS 5/10-1

Aggravated kidnapping 720 ILCS 5/10-2

Unlawful restraint 720 ILCS 5/10-3

Aggravated unlawful restraint 720 ILCS 5/10-3.1

Forcible detention 720 ILCS 5/10-4

Child abduction 720 ILCS 5/10-5

Trafficking persons 720 ILCS 5/10-9

Indecent solicitation of a child 720 ILCS 5/11-6

Indecent solicitation of an adult 720 ILCS 5/11-6.5

Solicitation to meet a child 720 ILCS 5/11-6.6

Sexual exploitation of a child 720 ILCS 5/11-9.1

Custodial sexual misconduct 720 ILCS 5/11-9.2

Sexual misconduct with a disabled person 720 ILCS 5/11-9.5

Child pornography 720 ILCS 5/11-20.1

Aggravated child pornography 720 ILCS 5/11-20.3

Assault 720 ILCS 5/12-1

Aggravated assault 720 ILCS 5/12-2

Vehicular endangerment 720 ILCS 5/12-2.5

Battery 720 ILCS 5/12-3

Battery of an unborn child 720 ILCS 5/12-3.1

Domestic battery 720 ILCS 5/12-3.2

Aggravated domestic battery 720 ILCS 5/12-3.3

Aggravated battery 720 ILCS 5/12-4

Heinous battery 720 ILCS 5/12-4.1

Aggravated battery with a firearm 720 ILCS 5/12-4.2

Aggravated battery with a machine gun or silencer 720 ILCS 5/12-4.2-5

Aggravated battery of a child 720 ILCS 5/12-4.3

Aggravated battery of an unborn child 720 ILCS 5/12-4.4

36

Description of offense Statute

Tampering with food drugs or cosmetics 720 ILCS 5/12-4.5

Aggravated battery of a senior citizen 720 ILCS 5/12-4.6

Drug induced infliction of great bodily harm 720 ILCS 5/12-4.7

Infected domestic animals 720 ILCS 5/12-4.8

Drug-induced infliction of aggravated battery to a child athlete 720 ILCS 5/12-4.9

Reckless conduct 720 ILCS 5/12-5-A

Intimidation 720 ILCS 5/12-6

Compelling organization membership of persons 720 ILCS 5/12-6.1

Aggravated intimidation 720 ILCS 5/12-6.2

Interfering with report of domestic violence 720 ILCS 5/12-6.3

Criminal street gang recruitment 720 ILCS 5/12-6.4

Compelling confession by force or threat 720 ILCS 5/12-7

Hate crime 720 ILCS 5/12-7.1

Educational intimidation 720 ILCS 5/12-7.2

Stalking 720 ILCS 5/12-7.3

Aggravated stalking 720 ILCS 5/12-7.4

Cyber stalking 720 ILCS 5/12-7.5

Cross-burning 720 ILCS 5/12-7.6

Threatening public officials 720 ILCS 5/12-9

Home invasion 720 ILCS 5/12-11

Vehicular invasion 720 ILCS 5/12-11.1

Criminal sexual assault 720 ILCS 5/12-13

Aggravated criminal sexual assault 720 ILCS 5/12-14

Predatory criminal sexual assault of a child 720 ILCS 5/12-14.1

Criminal sexual abuse 720 ILCS 5/12-15

Aggravated criminal sexual abuse 720 ILCS 5/12-16

Criminal transmission of HIV 720 ILCS 5/12-16.2

Criminal abuse or neglect of an elderly person or person with disability 720 ILCS 5/12-21

Child abandonment 720 ILCS 5/12-21.5

Endangering the life or health of a child 720 ILCS 5/12-21.6

Violation of an order of protection 720 ILCS 5/12-30

Inducement to commit suicide 720 ILCS 5/12-31

Ritual mutilation 720 ILCS 5/12-32

Ritualized abuse of a child 720 ILCS 5/12-33

Female genital mutilation 720 ILCS 5/12-34

Robbery 720 ILCS 5/18-1

Armed robbery 720 ILCS 5/18-2

Vehicular hijacking 720 ILCS 5/18-3

Aggravated vehicular hijacking 720 ILCS 5/18-4

Aggravated robbery 720 ILCS 5/18-5

37

Description of offense Statute

Arson 720 ILCS 5/20-1

Aggravated arson 720 ILCS 5/20-1.1

Residential arson 720 ILCS 5/20-1.2

Place of worship arson 720 ILCS 5/20-1.3

Aggravated DUI with bodily injury

625 ILCS 5/11-501-D-1-C

625 ILCS 5/11-501-D-1-E

625 ILCS 5/11-501-D-1-F

625 ILCS 5/11-501-D-1-J

Aggravated discharge of a firearm 720 ILCS 5/24-1.2

Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority300 W. Adams Street, Suite 200

Chicago, Illinois 60606Phone: 312.793.8408

Fax: 312.793.8422TDD: 312.793.4170

Visit us online: www.icjia.state.il.us